Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
Bravo, you found a typo. You must feel good about yourself.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Hero

You still think there's WMD in Iraq ?

---

Is there a secret base or giant stockpile? No. Thats silly.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Bush never said the threat was imminent.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Remember the Tonkin Gulf? The Mayaguez? Grenada? The Falklands? Panama?

---

Quote:

---

In hindsight, the "reasons" why a military action was taken don't stand up to the scrutiny of history.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Bush never said the threat was imminent.

---

Not in literal language, but he did offer up this bit of restrained, non-charged wisdom regarding Saddam's Iraq:
"If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning," Bush said.

---

Quote:

---

Bush never said the threat was imminent. In fact, in the SOTU address he argued that it was not imminent – suggesting instead that we should not wait until it does become imminent and take us off guard the way Al Qaeda did on 9/ll.

---

Quote:

---

Preemptive war (or preemptive attack) is waged in an attempt to repel or defeat a perceived imminent offensive or invasion, or to gain a strategic advantage in an impending (allegedly unavoidable) war. Preemptive war is often confused with the term preventive war. While the latter is generally considered to violate international law, and to fall short of the requirements of a just war, preemptive wars are more often argued to be justified or justifiable.[citation needed] However, the legal ground for preemption remains a highly contentious issue.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:


If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.”

---

Quote:

---

So, uhh, any response would fail, in other words. It's do this, or all is lost? So, he can know the future, then.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Except President Bush, who knows all and sees all, I guess.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

*govels*

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
According to some international lawyers, the only reason for invasion is to preempt an imminent threat. According to others, even THAT reason isn't good enough.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
So, uhh, any response would fail, in other words. It's do this, or all is lost? So, he can know the future, then. And you buy this?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Oh, you'd never believe that anyone could do that right?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
So, he's blowing a situation out of proportion...uhh..on purpose? Does that constitute a lie? Or just a stupid opinion?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Your playing games with the use of the word 'imminent' is merely sophmoric sophistry.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
No hard feelings, Finn...I just never won an argument so totally before!!!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Hero

You still think there's WMD in Iraq ?

---

Is there a secret base or giant stockpile? No. Thats silly. But a canister of sarin gas buried in the desert or in a forgotton cellar...you can't rule that out.

I note for the record that chlorine gas has been used in a small number of insurgent attacks since 2003.

H

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I buy that, considering how we were blindsided on 9/ll, Bush believed that caution was the better part of valor in this instance. That doesn’t make him a liar.

---

Quote:

---

Blowing it out of proportion according to whom?

---

Quote:

---

If I said that we needed to invade Afghanistan and eliminate Al Qaeda in 1999 because if not we would might get attacked in 2001, would I be blowing the threat from Al Qaeda out of proportion?

---

Quote:

---

There is nothing sophomoric or sophistic about what I said. What might be sophomoric, however, is deliberately mischaracterizing Bush’s position in order to accuse him of dishonesty. So if Bush’s position was really so wrong, why do you have to mischaracterize it?

---

Quote:

---

Well, you haven’t won this one either, so don’t feel bad.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Oh, I won I won I won I won I won I won I won I won I won I won I won I won I won I won I won I won I won I won I won I won I won I won I won I won I won I won I won I won I won I won I won I won I won I won I won I won I won I won I won I won I won I won I won I won I won I won I won I won I won I won I won I won I won I won I won I won I won I won I won I won I won I won I won I won!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Liberals can't win...cause then someone would have to lose and thats not very liberal of you...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
4)You can also not KNOW that Bush was telling the truth.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Don't believe I did.

---

Quote:

---

I can’t, and I didn’t say I could. But I don’t assume someone is a liar because I disagree with them, which is essentially all you’re doing with regard to Bush.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:


When I see someone making serious, horrible blunders time and time again there are only two things I can conclude: they are either irretrievably stupid, or they have other motivations behind their actions.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
This is the simple logic that escapes Finn. He and others like him create an elabourate fantasy in which all manner of complication enter into constructing a protective cocoon around a man or idea.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
And what elaborate fantasy is that? That the government screwed up as, quite frankly, happens a lot, or that there was some conspiracy involving the presidency, the military, the Congress and even the British Government and military, and the Australian government etc to start a war for the calculating purpose of forcing Bush’s poll numbers into the 20’s and pushing Blair out of office?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
So now the conspiracy involves private companies too.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
What too? It's always been about the golden rule. Friends of friends. Backroom handshakes. The 'shadow government' is right out in the open.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Bush was horribly, irretrievably wrong on everything that had to do with Iraq ...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Cheney has no ties to Halliburton.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Why is Conspiracy Theory one of Chrisisall's favourite movies?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Why is Conspiracy Theory one of Chrisisall's favourite movies?

---

Because he's loved Julia Roberts ever since Pretty Woman...

H

---

Quote:

---

The idea that contractors represent some sort of shadow government is pretty unlikely, but it is a new one.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
WHAAA???? Where have you BEEN for the last 50 years?

Well, since you don't seem to trust information unless it's really old and crusty and issued by the Higest Power In The Land, I give you....

Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Its a world of plots and the real conspiracy is that none of its real and whats happening is whats actually happening, not some big secret behind the scenes crap.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:]

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Bush was horribly, irretrievably wrong on everything that had to do with Iraq ...

---

"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them." - President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." -Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 (The same fella that stole classified documents from the National Archives).

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"s a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored away secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."-Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."-Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002 (she can't run from this line).

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."-Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Its a world of plots and the real conspiracy is that none of its real and whats happening is whats actually happening, not some big secret behind the scenes crap.

---

So, those guys downtown that hate you because they're envious of your conviction rate aren't secretly trying to have you fired by talkin' s**t about you to the judges, eh?

OK.

No conspiracies then Chrisisall

---

Quote:

---

Conspiracy theories are a mental coping mechanism, they allow people to remove uncertainty from their world. Uncertainty is scary, people take some comfort in believing that there is a plan, even if that plan is nefarious and criminal.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Jongsstraw- BEFORE the last round of inspections, there was very little real information about what Saddam was or wasn't doing. The fact that Saddam had WMD and had used them in Iran wasn't a real surprise, but once a naiton has the capability its hard to think that the genie has gone back into the bottle. So I understand the suspicion at the time. But once intrusive inspections began to show nothing, and once some of the "compelling evidence" started to unravel, politicians (including Bush) should have taken a more evaluative stance before committing to invasion. If it had been up to me, I would have waited until the inspections were completed. And that's what I found so odd: Just as evidence was accumulating that WMD was not a dire threat, at the time when the press for invasion should have been slowing down, Bush was speeding up. The only intepretation that I could put on this was that Bush wanted to invade before the inspections were complete.

Had the inspections been completed, that would have been a whole nother story, because the oil embargo would be lifted and contracts with Russia and France were about to be signed. We would have been facing a different problem: The problem of ensuring ourselves that Iraq wouldn't restart it's WMD program in the milieu of more open and frequent trade.

I think quite a few Democrats were stampeded into supporting the war because Bush had worked up such a froth of anxiety in the general public that they didn't want to lose credibility with their constituents. In other words, many were prolly- as you say- political opportunists. Hower, I have to point out that a LOT of Democratic Senators voted against invasion (I think it was 22 Senators) so there were a lot of politicians who showed both insight and backbone.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

---